Literally every candidate must be seen as "Tough on Crime" because the public wont vote for anyone who doesn't make this appeal. This became a big Republican stance that Clinton embraced that helped him win the election. So please show me the not "tough on crime" politician that has any shot at winning an election.

This was when the Republicans had majorities in both chambers of Congress, Newt Gingrich was Speaker of the House, and the Republican's Contract on America was passed, unfortunately. The Democrats shifted right because they thought that's what would win them elections.

Sure, Biden and Harris are terrible candidates because they're 1990s Republicans, but they're a million times better than Trump and Pence. The smear campaigns against them are an attempt to elevate Trump and Pence so he seems only as awful as Biden And Harris. Don't take the bait. Don't defend them. For a Republican to warn liberals that Biden and Harris don't deserve anyone's vote because they're those "tough on crime" types when it was Republicans who shut the government down to force through "tough on crime" legislation and codify "tough on crime" as a requisite to hold political office is some serious b.s.

They literally support none of those things (except maybe identity politics).

The think tanks' efforts to brand "socialism" as authoritarianism have paid off. M4A being painted as an authoritarian nightmare is a slick trick on their part.

Can you point me to a non-authoritarian socialist nation, now or at any point in the past...

Socialism fails very quickly if not backed by an Authoritarian form of government... Only with Authoritarian enforcement can it survive and then only with extreme poverty and misery for most people.

This is unrelated to a presidents attempt to reduce voting, I would think you would be pro voting